Nothing Yet

I am relatively noncommittal our state legislature will resolve the school funding issue this week. I mean, maybe it will happen, or maybe it won't. The real problem though is that the funding decision deadline was Friday. Perhaps there was optimism going into the [last] week; after all both the Senate and the House had introduced competing SSA bills: the Senate at 2.1% and the House at 2.5%. The Senate went first, getting their bill out of the chamber where it bounced over to the House. I had the good fortune of being in the House chamber for a while on Tuesday when the debate got underway. Immediately upon receipt of the Senate bill, it was substituted for the House bill (so basically it was amended from 2.1% to 2.5%). After the preliminaries got underway, a member offered a new amendment to change it to 3%. The debate started, and I watched with interest until.....they called for a caucus/recess. At that point we gave up and came home. I was back in my office a little after lunch and went on with my day, the outcome all but certain. The 3% would (and did) fail and the 2.5% would pass, sending the bill back to the Senate. Which is where it sits right now. 

Iowa House of Representatives debates SSA.

Now I presume a conference committee will be assigned and they'll negotiate a number somewhere in between 2.1% and 2.5%. Fine. Here is what I can't really understand though. We used to know 18 months in advance what SSA (or at that time allowable growth) was going to be. Then they changed the law and said it would be decided for the next fiscal year within the first 30 days of the governor releasing her budget. That is roughly five months in advance of the next fiscal year. Pretty short timeline to plan for the next fiscal year; but okay, fine again. I get it, with it being the law and all. Just tell us so we can get on with our planning. But we are still not following the law.

I suppose it would at least make a little sense if this were a partisan issue. You know, Republicans versus Democrats. The only way that would happen is if one of the chambers were controlled by an opposing party. Or the executive branch was represented by a different party. But this isn't a partisan issue. It's a chamber issue. 

Now, our lobbying groups have called for 3.75%, which I'm sorry friends that was never going to happen. I totally understand (and am certain all my colleagues do as well) that is an unrealistic 'ask' in this political environment. But at the same time it highlights the stress that some schools are under. Nevermind the fact that 3.75% would be affordable, sustainable, and leave plenty of revenue for the taxpayer relief fund. For goodness sake, at its last meeting, the REC estimated revenue growth at 2.1%; but the actual growth is clipping along at 6.16%! There was also a surplus at the end of FY 2019, and based on the current projection the surplus at the end of this fiscal year will be even bigger. All that said, I don't really like it, but I'm ready to move on. I have a budget to set, and don't know the what one of the important variables is going to be.

But here is what I really don't get. The governor said 2.5%. The House said 2.5%. The Senate said 2.1%. They are all in the same party. What exactly is the Senate trying to prove?